JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by L. Narasimha Reddy J.-This appeal preferred by Revenue presents important question of law which in turn would unfold as and when discussion progresses. respondent is company incorporated under Companies Act and was submitting returns year after year. disparity between profits that are posted by company in its annual report on one hand and those that are shown in returns filed under Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), was matter of serious concern for Revenue. After making several efforts to fill up gap, Parliament enacted section 115JA of Act. According to this provision, wherever profits of company as reflected in returns are less than 30 per cent. of what is posted in books of account submitted as part of its obligation under Companies Act, tax leviable would be 30 per cent. of latter. Obviously for this reason, profit and loss account which is part of annual report of company becomes relevant. For assessment year in its book profits, respondent posted sum of Rs. 4,28,17,995. This included sum of Rs. 3,81,48,960 which is said to be interest on intercorporate deposits for four consecutive previous years, i.e., 1985-86 to 1988-89. note was appended to returns with request to exclude amount of Rs. 3,81,48,960 from assessment by stating that said amount is referable to earlier assessment years and has also suffered tax. In his order dated March 31, 1993, Assessing Officer did not accept that plea. Thereupon, respondent filed I. T. A. No. 77/CC. III/CIT(A)III/93-94 before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-III, Hyderabad. plea of appellant was that once amount has suffered tax and its inclusion in book profit was only for purpose of reflecting financial state of affairs, there was no basis to bring it under purview of tax once again under section 115J of Act. That was accepted and Commissioner partly allowed appeal by deleting profits for assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 on ground that section 115J of Act was not in force at relevant point of time. However, he did not allow such deduction for assessment year 1988-89 and 1989-90. respondent filed I. T. A. No. 570/Hyd/94 before Hyderabad Bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal"). Revenue also filed I. T. A. No. 796/Hyd/94 feeling aggrieved by deletion of component of interest from purview of section 115J of Act for assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88. Through its common order dated June 21, 2002, Tribunal accepted contention of respondent for all four years and to that extent, it has set aside order of Assessing Officer. Hence, this appeal by Revenue. Sri S. R. Ashok, learned senior counsel for appellant, submits that whatever may have been justification for Commissioner and Tribunal for excluding interest for assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 on ground that section 115J of Act was not on statute book at relevant point of time; there was absolutely no basis for it, to allow deduction of amount for assessment years 1988-89 and 198990. He submits that once respondent has reflected amount in book profit, referable to section 115J of Act, neither Department nor has assessee any option to ignore same in context of levying tax under that provision. He placed strong reliance upon judgment of Supreme Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 273 (SC). learned senior counsel further submits that just as Assessing Officer cannot probe into correctness or otherwise of facts and figures contained in profit and loss account submitted by company as part of its obligation under Companies Act, assessee also cannot pick up item from such profit and loss account and seek exclusion thereof from purview of tax. Sri S. Ravi, learned senior counsel for respondent and Sri Pushyam Kiran, assisting him, submit that amount of Rs. 3,81,48,960 constituted interest on corporate deposits for four assessment years earlier to assessment year in question and in respect of two such assessment years provisions under section 115J of Act was not in existence at all since it came into effect, only from April 1, 1988. It is argued that even in respect of other two assessment years, i.e., 1988-89 and 1989-90, there was absolutely no basis for Assessing Officer to subject such amounts for tax twice since amounts were subjected to tax in corresponding assessment years. learned were subjected to tax in corresponding assessment years. learned counsel further submit that notwithstanding authenticity that is attached to profit and loss account or book profits that are reflected in accounts that are prepared and submitted as part of obligation under Companies Act, basic tenets such as that same amount cannot be brought under tax twice cannot be ignored and that exercise to be undertaken by Assessing Officer is contrary to Explanation to section 115J of Act. Another contention of learned counsel is that "book profit" referable to section 115J of Act takes in its fold only income referable to year, previous to concerned assessment year and not any thing which has accrued to assessee, much earlier, in point of time, particularly, amount, that has suffered tax. According to learned counsel, judgment in Apollo Tyres' case (supra) does not operate as bar for assessee to plead factum of amount having been suffered to tax and there is nothing in that judgment which prohibits exercise in this behalf. circumstances, in brief, that warranted enactment of section 115J of Act have already been taken note of. provision reads as under: "115J. Special provisions relating to certain companies.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, where in case of assessee being company (other than company engaged in business of generation or distribution of electricity), total income, as computed under this Act in respect of any previous year relevant to assessment year commencing on or after 1st day of April, 1988, but before 1st day of April, 1991 (hereafter in this section referred to as relevant previous year), is less than thirty per cent of its book profit, total income of such assessee chargeable to tax for relevant previous year shall be deemed to be amount equal to thirty per cent. of such book profit. (1A) Every assessee, being company, shall, for purposes of this section, prepare its profit and loss account for relevant previous year in accordance with provisions of Parts II and III of Schedule VI to Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956). Explanation.-For purposes of this section,'book profit' means net profit as shown in profit and loss account for relevant previous year prepared under sub-section (1A), as increased by- (a) amount of income-tax paid or payable, and provision therefore; or (b) amounts carried to any reserves (other than reserves specified in section 80HHD or sub-section (1) of section 33AC, by whatever name called; or (c) amount or amounts set aside to provisions made for meeting liabilities, other than ascertained liabilities; or (d) amount by way of provision for losses of subsidiary companies; or (e) amount or amounts of dividends paid or proposed; or (f) amount or amounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which any of provisions of Chapter III applies; or (g) amount withdrawn from reserve account under section 80HHD, where it has been utilised for any purpose other than those referred to in sub- section (4) of that section; or (h) amount credited to reserve account under section 80HHD, to extent that amount has not been utilised within period specified in sub- section (4) of that section; or (ha) amount deemed to be profits under sub-section (3) of section 33AC, if any amount referred to in clauses (a) to (f) is debited or, as case may be, amount referred to in clauses (g) and (h) is not credited to profit and loss account, and as reduced by,- (i) amount withdrawn from reserves (other than reserves specified in section 80HHD) or provisions, if any such amount is credited to profit and loss account: Provided that, where this section is applicable to assessee in any previous year (including relevant previous year), amount withdrawn from reserves created or provisions made in previous year relevant to assessment year commencing on or after 1st day of April, 1988, shall not be reduced from book profit unless book profit of such year has been increased by those reserves or provisions (out of which said amount was withdrawn) under this Explanation; or (ii) amount of income to which any of provisions of Chapter III applies, if any such amount is credited to profit and loss account; or (iii) amounts as arrived at after increasing net profit by amounts referred to in clauses (a) to (f) and reducing net profit by amounts referred to in clauses (i) and (ii) attributable to business, profits from which are eligible for deduction under section 80HHC or section 80HHD; so, however, that such amounts are computed in manner specified in sub- section (3) or sub-section (3A) of section 80HHC or sub-section (3) of section 80HHD, as case may be; or (iv) amount of loss or amount of depreciation which would be required to be set off against profit of relevant previous year as if provisions of clause (b) of first proviso to subsection (1) of section 205 of Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), are applicable. (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall affect determination of amounts in relation to relevant previous year to be carried forward to subsequent year or years under provisions of sub-section (2) of section 32 or sub-section (3) of section 32A or clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 72 or section 73 or section 74 or sub-section (3) of section 74A or sub-section (3) of section 80J." We felt it necessary to extract entire provision to understand concept of book profit, adopted for purpose of that section. From perusal of Explanation, it becomes clear that notwithstanding freedom given to assessee to state its book profit in its annual report submitted as part of its obligation under Companies Act; he is kept under obligation to be truthful. book profit is liable to be increased or decreased, depending upon factors that are mentioned in Explanation. One central theme that runs across all through, is that profit and loss shall be with reference to relevant previous year, as is evident from following expression occurring in Explanation: "profit and loss account for relevant previous year". In its profit and loss account, referable to section 115J of Act, respondent reflected book profit of Rs. 4,28,17,995. In page 26 of its balance-sheet which is part of 14th annual report for year 1989-90, respondent stated as under: "Interest on intercorporate deposits in respect of earlier years after profit and loss account is Rs. 3,81,48,960." In note on account that are mentioned in schedule 12, following Explanation is furnished with reference to said amount: "15. Pursuant to change in accounting policy of company, interest income on intercorporate deposits amounting to Rs. 400.90 lakhs including Rs. 381.49 lakhs pertaining to earlier years, which was hitherto netted off from'expenditure during construction pending allocation' has now been credited to interest income in profit and loss account. Consequent to this change in accounting policy as compared to earlier years, profit for year is higher by Rs. 400.90 lakhs and reserves and surplus and expenditure during construction pending allocation are higher by Rs. 400.90 lakhs." It is on basis of this, that respondent claimed deduction of sum of Rs. 3,81,48,960 from book profits. Assessing Officer, however, did not agree. fact that these very amounts have been subjected to tax in earlier assessment years was agreed to, even by Assessing Officer. same is evident from following paragraph. "2. Pursuant to note No. 5 of notes to accounts interest on intercorporate deposits pertaining to financial years ended March 31, 1986; March 31, 1988 and March 31, 1989, corresponding to assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90 aggregating to Rs. 3,81,48,960 has been credited to profit and loss account for assessment year 1990-91. Assessing Officer at time of making assessment for abovesaid assessment years has not considered claim of company and has included above sum for assessment purposes. Since this amount has already been assessed by way of regular assessment under section 143(3) same is not considered in computation statement to arrive at taxable income/ loss for year under assessment." only basis for him to disallow deduction was that said amount was not reflected under section 115J of Act at any point of time and once they are reflected in current assessment year, there is no way, that amount can be ignored. plea of appellant that once amount representing interest on corporate deposit for four years has been subjected to tax, that cannot be brought under purview of tax either directly or indirectly, did weigh only in part with Commissioner. yardstick adopted by him was that for two years 1986-87 and 1987-88, section 115J of Act was not on statute book and as such, interest on corporate deposits for those two assessment years cannot be subject matter of assessment year 1994-95. As regards other two subsequent assessment years, he took view that as interest for two years not having been reflected in book profits under section 115J of Act they are liable to be brought under purview of tax, for current assessment year. In appeals preferred by appellant as well as respondent, Tribunal was impressed by fact that amount for subsequent two years also has been subjected to tax, earlier. At more places than one, it emphasised this. In course of its discussion, Tribunal took assistance of precedents and observed as under: "It is fundamental rule of law on taxation that unless otherwise expressly provided, income cannot be taxed twice. Laxmipat Singhania v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 291 (SC) taxing statute should not be interpreted in such manner that its effect will be to cast burden twice over payment of tax on taxpayer unless language of statute is so compellingly certain that court has no other alternative than to accept it. (Tata Iron and Steel Co. v. Union of India [1970] 75 ITR 676 (Patna)). In other words, there can be double taxation if Legislature has distinctly enacted it. plain reading of section 115J does not, to our mind, employ language expressly or impliedly to subject to tax same item of income twice. Though there is no specific provision under section 115J for deducting income that has been taxed in earlier year, though credited to profit and loss account in subsequent year while computing book profits liable to tax, proposition laid down by Special Bench of Tribunal in case of Sutlej Cotton Mills propounds such theory. general concept of taxation does not allow taxation of income twice." It is on this basis, that Tribunal excluded interest on corporate deposits, for all four years. principal contention urged by learned senior counsel for Department is that facts and figures furnished in profit and loss account by company as part of its obligation under Companies Act which in turn referable under section 115J of Act are to be taken on their face value; and just as Department is precluded from analysing or correcting them, assessee also cannot be permitted to ignore any component mentioned therein. There cannot be any quarrel with this proposition. judgment of Supreme Court in Apollo Tyres' (supra) is to effect that profit and loss account referable to section 115J of Act is subjected to several verifications under mechanism of Companies Act and same cannot be subject matter of scrutiny by Income-tax Assessing Officer. Even while conceding inviolability profit and loss account of company, their Lordships kept intact freedom of Assessing Officer to undertake scrutiny with reference to Explanation. relevant portion reads as under (page 280 of 255 ITR): "There cannot be two incomes one for purpose of Companies Act and another for purpose of income-tax both maintained under company's income, then it would have stated in section 115J that'income of company as accepted by Assessing Officer'. In absence of same and on language of section 115J, it will have to held that view taken by Tribunal is correct and High Court has erred in reversing said view of Tribunal." Two aspects becomes relevant in this regard. first is whether interest on corporate deposits of respondent that is mentioned in profit and loss account for assessment year 1994-95 can be treated as one "for relevant previous year" which expression occurs at more places than one in section 115J of Act". Even Assessing Officer did not doubt plea of respondent that amount is referable to four assessment years and corresponding break up was also given. reason for which respondent has shown interest referable to four earlier years in profits and loss of account for assessment year 199495 are not immediately before us. However, on undisputed facts, those figures cannot be said to be income or book profit "for relevant previous year". Secondly, one of cardinal principles of taxation is that no amount shall be brought under purview of taxation, unless there is specific legislative sanction for it. If one takes into account complex and complicated scheme under Act, it is evident that Parliament has taken every precaution to ensure that no amount is subjected to taxation twice, unless relevant provision specifically permits of it. There is nothing in Act which permits interest on corporate deposits, to be taxed twice. From perusal of order of Assessing Officer, it becomes clear that for their own reasons, respondent did not want to reflect income on corporate deposits for four years mentioned above, in any form whatever. However, Assessing Officers who dealt with returns for corresponding years, did bring those interests directly under purview of tax and tax was levied. Though facility to bring those very amounts under section 115J of Act was available for two assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90, that was not resorted to, obviously because Assessing Officer is precluded from making any additions, deletions, or alterations to profit and loss account, referable to section 115J of Act. reason is that it is only authorities under Companies Act that are conferred with power to scrutinise such accounts. Therefore, straight forward way of bringing those amounts under tax was adopted and tax was levied. With that said amounts are no longer available to be dealt with under Act in any form whatever. Therefore, mere inclusion of those amounts in profit and loss account referable to under section 115J of Act for assessment year 1994-95 did not make much of difference from point of view of income-tax. Bringing those amounts to tax once again, may be, under section 115J of Act could have resulted in anomaly if not absurdity. It is too well known that no provision can be understood or interpreted in such way as to lead absurd or anomalous situation. This principle gets attracted with added vigour, when situation is brought about, by operation of two different enactments. Though judgment of Supreme Court in Apollo Tyres' case (supra) was not in existence when matter was decided by Commissioner or Tribunal, we do not find any thing in orders passed by them which runs contrary to principle laid down by Supreme Court, therein. We do not find any force in appeal. appeal is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd